Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
100-400L, No Words To Describe It...  
User currently offlineGlapira From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 186 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3834 times:

Hello all!
I just got my 100-400L for my Canon 300D and went take some shots in Barajas (LEMD). The results are amazing but I still need to practice with it and get used to its dimensions.

Here I post a shot that I just uploaded. Hope you'll like it.

Kind Regards..

Giorgio La Pira

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/IMG_2599.jpg

P.D.

This shot is especially dedicated to Ander... he knows why...


Kind Regards, Radial360
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3823 times:

Quality is looking its part. 100-400 sure IS a nice lens. It isn't level though. Use the apartment buildings in the background to level it off.

Perhaps the runway slopes, but I don't care  Wink It looks unlevel.



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3821 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

it IS unlevel Smile Nice shot otherwise!

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3811 times:

Yeah looks unlevel. Great shot otherwise!

I was blown away with the results from my first 100-400 outing last August. So I know how it feels!  Smile

Cheers,
Justin Big grin


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3810 times:

One other thing, did you use NeatImage? The grass in the foreground looks weird, but that could just be the motion blur.


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting Glapira (Thread starter):
100-400L, No Words To Describe It...

I got one.... How about "Almost"?

As in "almost as nice" as the 300L 2.8..!

I've used the 100-400 for over a year now, it's nice, but that damn 300 2.8 will make you cry.  Wink


User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting Glapira (Thread starter):
This shot is especially dedicated to Ander... he knows why...

Sure is a present from Ander  tongue 

Take care

Enrique


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5042 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3711 times:

Hey....add me too! I have just joined the 100-400 owners club. I purchased on on ebay for my 10D. Picture quality is excellent! And some big air shows coming up for me next month!

I do have some pics that I shot with it, but for now all my queue slots are taken with 75-300 lens pictures. It'll be probably another week or 2 till the first of my 100-400L pics show up in the queue.

bruce
New 100-400L IS lens owner!



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

What f/stop do you all normally shoot at with the 100-400 to get the best quality?

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineGlapira From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

Hello all!

You were totally right... Probably, I drunk toom much or something like that when I edited it. Here is the new version. 100-400 L is amazing... and the image stabilizer helps a lot especially on pannings!

Here is the link.

Thanks!

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/cristalerajumbo_2599.jpg



Kind Regards, Radial360
User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting TWAMD-80 (Reply 8):
What f/stop do you all normally shoot at with the 100-400 to get the best quality?

Stopped down to f.8 it usually gives the best results!

Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Here is the post I created when I first got my 100-400. I was completely over the moon with the results I got!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ation_photography/read.main/145044

Cheers,
Justin Big grin


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

I don't want to rain on the 100-400 parade, but it has some flaws that should be considered before buying one. As mentioned above, the lens is barely usable with a larger stop than f/8. The quality with f/5.6 at 400mm is outrageous. This is ironic because the image stabilizer isn't of much use if you have to stop down to get an acceptable quality.

Keep also in mind that not every 100-400 is the same. My first one was very sharp even at 400mm. It had however that notorious f/0 error when shooting against the sun under hazy conditions. So I sent it to the repair shop, waited almost 2 months, called Canon several times & got eventually a replacement. The new lens wasn't as sharp as the old one, but had the f/0 error as well. I sent it to the repair shop, & after a few weeks it came back with a message saying it was tested in the lab & no error could be found. I clearly had written that the error only occurs under sunny & hazy/rainy/snowy conditions. So much for the Canon service.

If I could choose again I'd go for the 400 f/5.6 (non-IS).

Thomas

[Edited 2005-05-28 12:16:02]

User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Justine looking at your pics in that thread you posted they look nice and crisp .
I have read reviews that claim the 100-400 is a tad soft at the 3 to 400 mark .
Can you give us your opinion on this lens .
And the sharpness at that focal length



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 13):
Justine looking at your pics in that thread you posted they look nice and crisp .

Thanks for the comments, the D30 + 100-400 was an excellent combo. But my name is Justin!

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 13):
I have read reviews that claim the 100-400 is a tad soft at the 3 to 400 mark .
Can you give us your opinion on this lens .
And the sharpness at that focal length

Personally I haven't had too many issues with sharpness between 3 & 400mm. If there has been a soft shot, it hasn't been to the point where I wasn't able to be give it a little kick of USM in Photoshop. I would say my copy of the lens is a "good one".

Cheers,
Justin  Smile


User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

I own the 100-400 and have used it now for around 1.5 years. I am selling mine now as i have upgraded to the 120-300 from sigma. I am going to add a 400F5.6L to go with it so that i have 400mm.

I do agree that the 100-400 is soft at 300-400mm. About 50% of the time it can be sorted with USM the rest it jsut isnt worth it. While i do like the lens, i have never got on with it perfectly. I would ahve also choose the 400F5.6L if i could do again.

That said, i am glad i bought it and i do like the lens. Just for me now i think i have got to the point where i want a little more.

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3575 times:

Hi all,

I wouldnt mind seeing out of interest some full size unedited 100-400 Canon DSLR shots to judge for myself if any one has a little time and some webspace?

Cheers

Ben Pritchard


User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting TS (Reply 12):
I'd go for the 400 f/5.6

Yes, primes may have better quality than zoom's, but prime lenses simply don't give you the flexibility you often need in aviation photography.

You have to plan your photo shoots well before the subject you want to capture arrives if you only have the fixed focal length of 400mm. Zoom lenses give you way more freedom - That is why for aviation photography, I'd choose a 70-200 or a 100-400 over a prime in the same range any time. For sports or feature photography, primes rule!  Smile

Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3468 times:

Quoting INNflight (Reply 17):
Yes, primes may have better quality than zoom's, but prime lenses simply don't give you the flexibility you often need in aviation photography.

You have to plan your photo shoots well before the subject you want to capture arrives if you only have the fixed focal length of 400mm. Zoom lenses give you way more freedom

I didn't recommend any lens, I just said what I would do. I don't need flexibility since most of my shots are 400mm anyways.

Thomas


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting INNflight (Reply 17):
That is why for aviation photography, I'd choose a 70-200 or a 100-400 over a prime in the same range any time

Oh Florian, you are missing out. I have been shooting with primes for a long time now, you just have to plan your shots well in advance........no loss of flexibility!!!!

The 100-400 may be nice but the push pull feature is something I don't like.
Not real fast glass, once you get used to shoot with 2.8, anything slower than that, forget about it!


VG.


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

The 100-400 may be a nice lens but I would not say it's fantastic.

I got just as good a result with the Sigma 170-500 which has been sold now.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2730 posts, RR: 41
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting Granite (Reply 20):
The 100-400 may be a nice lens but I would not say it's fantastic.

I totally agree Gary, the Sigma range is on par with the 100-400.



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting Granite (Reply 20):
I got just as good a result with the Sigma 170-500 which has been sold now.

You must have some VERY nice hands if you were able to do that! I have both lenses and actually "upgraded" to a 100-400 over my 170-500mm. Congrats to you if you were able to do that! (Then again I shake more than a stripper)

Thanks,

Matt



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Matt

Yes, I have nice hands.....well so the girls have told me anyway  Smile

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 19):
you just have to plan your shots well in advance........no loss of flexibility!!!!

That is what I call a contradictory statement indeed  Smile

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
25 Post contains images JumboJim747 : Hey Justin sorry about the typo All the best and thanks for your reply .
26 Post contains images INNflight : Ok Vasco, maybe I have to correct that statement a bit... I'd choose a 70-200 or a 100-400 over a prime in the same range any time because of flexibi
27 Post contains links Sulman : Justin Wood has very kindly let me use his 100-400 for some shots on various occasions. I've been so familiar with the 70-200 at Southampton it was re
28 F9Widebody : After using Matt Hom's lens yesterday, I am going to have to find a way to accelerate my plan to purchase this lens. Hehe, fantastic glass! You guys t
29 Scooter : Absolutely. I have both, and I wouldn't get rid of either. The sharpness of the 70-200 is simply astounding, and for that reason alone, I am going to
30 Spartan13 : Scooter, I have owned the 70-200 for about alittle over a month, I would have to agree with you on the sharpness of the 70-200, the focusing speed is
31 Paulinbna : Actually I find the push pull to be faster once you get used to it. The problem with this is that you can change the in camera sharpening and change
32 UA777222 : No draw back whatsoever. I used to shoot with the sigma 170-500 and that thing was soooooo stiff that I used the push/pull method. Albeit it wasn't t
33 Airplanepics : Make sure you test other lenses in the range before you make such a big purchase. If I was you, I'd also look into the Sigma 50-500, nearly half the
34 OD720 : I tried this lens yesterday and I must say that the thing is huge and quite heavy! But at the same time, it looked like a true gem.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 100-400L : Is It Worth It? posted Tue Nov 16 2004 21:53:28 by Dlx737200
Lens To Compliment Canon 100-400L Is? posted Fri Jul 16 2004 06:41:24 by Bronko
Oversharpened: How To Correct It? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:08:28 by PipoA380
Sigma 50-500 Or Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jul 10 2006 07:52:38 by Franzloew
Rejected WTC Photo - Any Way To Rescue It? posted Wed Oct 12 2005 20:07:49 by Birdwatching
Canon 100-400L Is Is Toasted posted Fri Aug 19 2005 06:41:41 by N317AS
Ok Sigma 100-300 EX F/4 I Need To Make My Mind Up! posted Sun Jul 31 2005 13:40:16 by LHRsunriser
Yay! Just Got My Canon 100-400L Is Lens posted Thu Jul 28 2005 23:23:51 by Fly747
Extender EF 2X II Vs 100-400L posted Tue Jul 19 2005 15:34:30 by Flighthelmets
20D With 100-400L For Fast Moving Subject posted Sat Jul 16 2005 06:27:29 by Skyline